2005 (1) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisions of Section 132(4A) which were introduced later on ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that legal plea with regard to the question of ones which was not before the authorities below could not have been raised for the first time before it and the addition of Rs. 16,100 was liable to be confirmed ? 3. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,100 on account of the value of ornaments, in the hands of the assessee-HUF ? 2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to present reference are as follows : The applicant is assessed to income-tax in the status of HUF. A search was conducted in the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the Department as search and seizure was conducted on 8th Oct., 1974. In support of the aforesaid plea, he has relied upon the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull ; 2. Addl CIT v. Karnail Singh v. Kalemn ; and 3. Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury and Ors. v. CIT . He further submitted that the Tribunal had given benefit in respect of other items which have been found in possession of the applicant by accepting his plea and, therefore, on the basis of the same analogy the Tribunal ought to have deleted the addition in question. 5. The learned standing counsel submitted that none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant is applicable to the facts of the present case. Acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is upon such a person to prove and to explain. Sub-section (4A) of Section 132 incorporates only such a presumption which otherwise is available under the general rule of evidence. Nothing turns on the provisions of Section 132(4A) of the Act in the present case, as the rule of evidence is very clear and well established. 7. In the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (supra) the IT Department was of the opinion that the fixed deposit receipt in the name of another person belonged to Daulat Ram Rawatmull. In this background the apex Court has held that the-onus of proving that the apparent was not the real was on the party who claimed it to be so. As it was the Department which claimed that the amount of fixed deposit receipt belonged to the res....